The Legalization of Marijuana in the United States

Washington (state), Colorado, and Oregon all have cannabis legalization initiatives on their ballot for November, of which Washington's looks to stand a decent chance of passing. The other two are pretty much doomed at this point, but stranger things have happened. According to the latest poll, support for Washington's Initiative 502 is leading by a decent margin (57% in favor, 34% opposed, 9% undecided) as of mid-September.

This measure would remove state-law prohibitions against producing, processing, and selling marijuana, subject to licensing and regulation by the liquor control board; allow limited possession of marijuana by persons aged twenty-one and over; and impose 25% excise taxes on wholesale and retail sales of marijuana, earmarking revenue for purposes that include substance-abuse prevention, research, education, and healthcare. Laws prohibiting driving under the influence would be amended to include maximum thresholds for THC blood concentration.

...

The initiative would legalize use of marijuana products purchased from state authorized sources for adults 21 and over and focus law enforcement resources on DUI prosecution as well as violent and property crimes. Unlicensed cannabis will still be illegal, including personal "grows" in one's own home, except for medical cannabis as regulated under RCW 69.51A.

Part I identifies the goal of the initiative and authorizes the Washington State Liquor Control Board "to regulate and tax marijuana for persons twenty-one years of age and older, and add a new threshold for driving under the influence of marijuana."

Part II establishes various definitions, including one which distinguishes "marijuana" from hemp and other parts of the cannabis plant based on its THC content.

Part III establishes a license system for marijuana producers, processors and retailers. Initial licenses shall be $250 with an annual renewal fee of $1000. Rules prohibit producers and processors from having any financial interest in retailers, much like the three-tier system for hard liquor in control states. This section also makes it clear that selling or distributing unlicensed marijuana remains illegal, setting limits on the maximum amount one may possess. Adults 21 years or older may possess up to "one ounce of useable marijuana," 16 ounces of marijuana-infused product in solid form, 72 ounces of marijuana-infused product in liquid form or "any combination" of all three.

Part IV establishes a "dedicated marijuana fund" for all revenue received by the liquor control board, and explicitly earmarks any surplus from this new revenue for health care (55%), drug abuse treatment and education (25%), with 1% for marijuana-related research at University of Washington and Washington State University, most of the remainder going to the state general fund. A March 2012 analysis by the state Office of Financial Management estimated annual revenues above $560 million for the first full year, rising thereafter.[5] February 2011 analysis of the similar Washington House Bill 1550 estimated annual state and county law-enforcement savings of approximately $22 million.[6][7] OFM's final, official analysis did not include law-enforcement savings, but estimated five year revenues at approximately $1.9 billion.[8][9][10] Proponents of I-502 have posted a pie chart showing annual dollar-per-purpose earmarks, based on these projections.[11]

Part V on "driving under the influence of marijuana" sets a per se DUI limit of active blood THC levels at greater than or equal to 5 nanograms per milliliter. Some medical cannabis advocates are concerned that this will lead to DUI convictions for medicinal cannabis users, who are driving with blood THC levels greater than or equal to 5 nanograms per milliliter.[12] If a suspect's blood tests for more than 5 nanograms/ml, under I-502 they would be guilty of DUI by definition, as opposed to the current law, RCW 46.61.502(1)(a) which requires proof of "impairment" for a conviction.

Washington could become a laboratory in easing the nation's drug war, which has cost more than $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives in the past 40 years while doing little to dent demand.

Just as likely, it could bring on a protracted fight with the federal government. Marijuana remains illegal under U.S. law, and when state and federal laws conflict, federal law takes precedence. The Justice Department has kept mum, but if I-502 passes, many lawyers believe the DOJ is likely to try to block the law on the grounds that it frustrates the Controlled Substances Act.

That could leave just part of the initiative standing: decriminalization of up to an ounce of pot under state law, with no way to buy it legally, and a driving-under-the-influence standard that opponents consider arbitrarily strict.

The federal government could also prosecute growers or retailers licensed under the law, seize Washington's new marijuana revenues as proceeds of illicit drug deals, or withhold money from the state.

In other words, it'll be the first time the issue is really forced to the national stage. Not that I think either Obama or Romney would support any easing of the War on Drugs, but these kinds of national conversations really need to start happening in order to accelerate the process. It's pretty clear to anyone paying attention that just like gay marriage, it's just a matter of time at this point. The general consensus in national polls has shown support for easing marijuana laws growing steadily over the past few decades. Recent polls show as much as 75% of the country believe states should be free from the federal government to regulate the substance for medical use, and as much as 50% of the country believes it should be legalized. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/recor ... juana.aspx)

Exciting times. If you live in Washington State, please make sure your voice is heard.

And a reminder for anyone seeking federal employment or clearances, "But it's legal in my state!" still won't make a difference on your drug use history form.

I'm all for legalizing it, mostly because the war on drugs is a miserable failure. No interest in actually using it.

Yep, also "but it's legal for medical use, I have a valid license, and I have a legal prescription" is not a valid argument against being fired by your private employer after failing a drug test, either, according to the courts in every state it has been challenged. As far as I know, none of these laws would change that status.

Obviously these things will be changed in time, but there's definitely gonna be some lag.

You do realize that there will still be a black market...Not really knowing the price points and such but if it's anything like our new liquor business, it may still be cheaper to get it from another source.Many liquor stores in Oregon have seen their sales go way up because it's so expensive in Washington now.This state just doesn't seem to understand that there is a point where raising the "sin" tax just drives the markets elsewhere.

Hopefully all the stupid fucking stoners will actually get off their asses and vote with us this time, unlike in California.

If it passes, I'll be interested in seeing the federal reaction. The Obama administration has been no friend to drugs so far, but I wouldn't expect him to go out of his way to thwart states that want to legalize it. Maybe he would, simply because he's so conservative, but more likely he'd play the part of apathetic enabler.

A Romney administration would receive extraordinary pressure to fight it. I doubt his administration would actually want to, if there's even the slightest shred of truth to his pragmatic businessman persona. But it would be difficult for him to run for re-election in four years if he never antagonized legalization. He could try to brush it off as "states rights" but the republicans know better than anyone that that's stupid bullshit.

I'd also be interested in seeing if this precipitates a counteraction from conservative states, the way gay marriage did. State constitutional amendments that declare marijuana to always be illegal, etc..

You do realize that there will still be a black market...Not really knowing the price points and such but if it's anything like our new liquor business, it may still be cheaper to get it from another source.Many liquor stores in Oregon have seen their sales go way up because it's so expensive in Washington now.This state just doesn't seem to understand that there is a point where raising the "sin" tax just drives the markets elsewhere.

Wouldn't costs of business drop? It seems to me that a legal, out-in-the-open pot farm would cost a hell of a lot less to run than what we have now. Same with distribution and sales.

I'm so far removed from that industry (not even a customer!), though, that I have no idea what the actual current costs are.

Many liquor stores in Oregon have seen their sales go way up because it's so expensive in Washington now.

Glad to know it's not just me. I thought liquor was insanely expensive in Washington compared to other places I've lived...

If you buy your liquor at Costco they actually show you how much you are paying in taxes. My 1.75L bottle of Jack Daniel's was $39.90 and they listed the cost of the actual product at $27.99. There was two taxes on top of that that equaled $11.91. So almost a third of the price was just tax.

Fred Meyer $35.99 total price for 1.75 of Jack.And that is what will happen with legal Marijuana...it will, IMHO, be cheaper to keep getting it from your old source.Note that I have no source or idea of the cost these days.

Fred Meyer $35.99 total price for 1.75 of Jack.And that is what will happen with legal Marijuana...it will, IMHO, be cheaper to keep getting it from your old source.Note that I have no source or idea of the cost these days.

I'm ok with there still being black market options for people who want them. That's the nature of things. I'm much more concerned with the other provisions, basically that the .gov would no longer consider me a criminal just because I enjoy marijuana. I really just want to be left alone.

Fred Meyer $35.99 total price for 1.75 of Jack.And that is what will happen with legal Marijuana...it will, IMHO, be cheaper to keep getting it from your old source.Note that I have no source or idea of the cost these days.

Well I didn't pay too much more for it at Costco.

And on a side note, is it sad that I have so much fondness for a large commercial grocery store. When my family comes to visit me from the midwest I purposely take them to Fred Meyer.

FWIW, the extra taxes was something that Washington residents voted for when they approved the referrendum eliminating the state monopoly on liquor sales. And of course, the referrendum was drafted and bankrolled (to the tune of $15 million) by Costco. So people really only have themselves to blame if they get sticker shock when they buy alcohol. As someone who voted against it, I find it rather funny when people get upset at all the taxes they pay on booze, when they're the ones who actually approved them all. Of course, Costco's campaign ads kinda sorta failed to bring up the taxes part, in favor of the "you'll be able to buy hard liquor EVERYWHERE!!!" argument.

I'm ok with there still being black market options for people who want them. That's the nature of things. I'm much more concerned with the other provisions, basically that the .gov would no longer consider me a criminal just because I enjoy marijuana. I really just want to be left alone.

You forgot to specify State Government. The Feds can and, in some cases, will come get you.

If it passes, I'll be interested in seeing the federal reaction. The Obama administration has been no friend to drugs so far, but I wouldn't expect him to go out of his way to thwart states that want to legalize it. Maybe he would, simply because he's so conservative, but more likely he'd play the part of apathetic enabler.

A Romney administration would receive extraordinary pressure to fight it. I doubt his administration would actually want to, if there's even the slightest shred of truth to his pragmatic businessman persona. But it would be difficult for him to run for re-election in four years if he never antagonized legalization. He could try to brush it off as "states rights" but the republicans know better than anyone that that's stupid bullshit.

I think a cagey conservative administration could challenge the law, if they were sure they would lose. The ACA case seemed to show a court that was questioning the limits of the commerce clause and this would be a tailor-made opportunity to set a new, more restrictive definition of interstate commerce if the court upheld the law. The administration would be able to look tough on drugs and undercut federal powers at the same time.

FWIW, the extra taxes was something that Washington residents voted for when they approved the referrendum eliminating the state monopoly on liquor sales. And of course, the referrendum was drafted and bankrolled (to the tune of $15 million) by Costco. So people really only have themselves to blame if they get sticker shock when they buy alcohol. As someone who voted against it, I find it rather funny when people get upset at all the taxes they pay on booze, when they're the ones who actually approved them all. Of course, Costco's campaign ads kinda sorta failed to bring up the taxes part, in favor of the "you'll be able to buy hard liquor EVERYWHERE!!!" argument.

Bringing up taxes always sounds like you are complaining about taxes I guess. I just found it interesting that Costco actually put the taxes on their labels, but maybe they do it with everything and I haven't noticed. Tell you the truth I was quite pleased to find that bottle to be right at $40 as I know I have found it more expensive elsewhere.

Why does "People smoke weed and end up in jail because of it" lead to "The solution is to decriminalize it"?

And why just cannabis?

If the argument is, "Things that one does to one's own body should not be illegal," why stop at just marijuana? Why not cocaine, heroin, LSD, PCP, E, (insert list of things I don't even know exist here)?

What makes marijuana special as a drug as compared to others?

As noted, I mostly support legalization on the "The War on Drugs is a failure that leads to massive funding for criminal organizations" basis. Gangs and the drug cartels are mostly funded by the profits from drugs being illegal, and cutting their funding sources by legalizing is the only real reason I think legalizing it is worthwhile - being illegal does more harm than good. But this applies to all drugs, not just marijuana.

I just found it interesting that Costco actually put the taxes on their labels, but maybe they do it with everything and I haven't noticed.

They actually didn't to start out with, and it is the only thing they do it on. I'm pretty certain it came from the epic freak outs that people were having the first couple weeks, where people rushed to the liquor aisle, went "WOW! LOOK HOW CHEAP LIQUOR IS NOW!!!", grabbed a bunch of bottles, and then started yelling at the hapless checkers when their totals ended up way higher than they expected. In fact, I recall several articles that interviewed people with that exact reaction.

The laws against cannabis and the imprisonment of its users are the problems.

This, and only this. Decriminalize at least.

From my experience in Portugal, which decriminalized all personal recreational drug use ten years ago, I realized decriminalization is not really a good policy because it still leaves the manufacturer, distribution and retail of a consumable product in the hands of a black or grey market. Now granted, Portugal is a much poorer country than the US so that is one factor, but from what I read and my experiences of small-time street dealers offering me their wares on the street, decriminalization takes the violence including the police violence farther away from the end customer, but it does little to reduce the shadyness of buying something you plan to consume that is totally unregulated, untaxed, etc. I also suspect that the petty dealers and their wholesalers still experience a high degree of violence or at least the threat of it, from both organized crime and corrupt police. It may be cheap and plentiful without street level transactions being stopped by police, but from what I read, quality was low and unreliable.

Legalization and regulation of the entire supply chain for recreational drugs, especially marijuana is the way to go. Guarantee quality, guarantee that retailers sell only to adults, traceability in case the product is tainted (like any other agricultural product) and tax it at a reasonable level. I also would not exclude letting individuals grow small plots for their own personal use since it is a plant after all.

If the argument is, "Things that one does to one's own body should not be illegal," why stop at just marijuana? Why not cocaine, heroin, LSD, PCP, E, (insert list of things I don't even know exist here)?

I think the argument is more "Marijuana is more like tobacco and alcohol than it is like coke, heroin, meth, etc.".

Meaning, the effects are fairly minor and take significant abuse to do any damage to one's health.

As noted, I mostly support legalization on the "The War on Drugs is a failure that leads to massive funding for criminal organizations" basis. Gangs and the drug cartels are mostly funded by the profits from drugs being illegal, and cutting their funding sources by legalizing is the only real reason I think legalizing it is worthwhile - being illegal does more harm than good. But this applies to all drugs, not just marijuana.

I think you can undercut the cartels by legalizing the most popular drug(s). I doubt there's a drug cartel subsisting *entirely* on PCP sales. The market's not that big, and a lot of users aren't exactly flush with disposable income. Marijuana's the most popular illegal drug out there and relatively harmless to the user.

Positive social effects, high degree of safety, low incidence of negative behaviours, safer by far than nicotine or booze.

Weed tends to mellow out smokers, in contrast to booze which makes many people vicious and violent. Sure, some folks become stoners instead of smoking moderately, but they are no threat to the rest of us.

I also want weed legally available when I enter old age, because synthetic pharmaceuticals have negative side effects and (inevitable unless you luck out and die first) dementia is obviously not fun. Everyone should remember how horrible that stage of life will be, and make sure you can at least stay baked until you croak.

Why cannabis is lumped in with dangerous recreational chemicals:

Chemical pleasure not rationed by religious shamans is a threat to their power, so the same teetotaler nutjobs who supported the Volstead Act support cannabis prohibition. Their goal is to control YOU by theocracy and never forget that.

When you make something completely illegal including just personal possession and use, you cede all control to the black market. I'd advocate making possession and use legal, but restricting the supply of harder drugs to approved channels like a specialty store or pharmacy. Certain recreational hallucinogens could be made available to those willing to say swipe their driver's license and temporarily surrender their driving privileges for 24-48 hours, take a class in safer use of the drugs, and be educated on conditions under which use is legal, and at what point it is considered illegal. For example, it should be legal to use lsd, MDMA, or psilocybin mushrooms in a private home or a private venue that specifically allows that activity, but not at a giant rock concert or out on the street. It should also be legal under a physicians supervision in a therapeutic setting. There continues to be mounting evidence that all three have lots of value in psychotherapy but the drug warriors in the government have made it dangerous for physicians to do so.

As to amphetamines, I agree they ought to be controlled, but our current policy is insane. At the same time we lock adults up for methamphetamine, we push its analogs on children to manage their behavior in the classroom.

Agreed.And when you cause somebody else harm while under the influence, that's when the hammer should fall. Not prior to any bad acts against others.

I'm hesitantly in favor of legalizing the whole spread, from the softest to hardest drugs. But this argument is not very good. Drunk driving should not be legal as long as you don't hit anybody. Sometimes laws need to be preventative.

The biggest problem with the black market on illegal drugs is that nobody involved has any legal recourse for anything. Get sold a bad product? Can't sue. Can't complain to the BBB. Etc. Get your stock stolen? Can't call the cops. So they turn to extra-legal means and that often leads to violence.

If the black market exists not as the only way to supply the product but just a way to undercut the legal suppliers on price, then there's (theoretically) less incentive to resort to violence when you're participating in the black market. You rolled the dice to avoid the sin taxes, you got cheated, you take your licks.

That said, I think it would be more intelligent policy to make sure that the legal market remains price competitive with the black market.

The federal government has the upper hand, legally speaking, but they don't have the manpower to sustain the entire war on drugs themselves.

The legalize, regulate, and tax strategy, while perfectly reasonable, is not optimal from a tactics point of view. It creates records and choke points that the federal government can use to make its job easier. From a massive resistance point of view the best bet it to remove all references to mj (+- DUI and selling to minors) from the law.

Combine with a few prominent jury nullification verdicts in federal court and you'd have a winner.

The federal government could also prosecute growers or retailers licensed under the law, seize Washington's new marijuana revenues as proceeds of illicit drug deals, or withhold money from the state.

I have always thought about this being a somewhat frightful consequence of legalization (though the devil in me says the whole thing would be interesting to witness). Would the Feds sue the state? Do they have the power to seize the money the state has? Part of me thinks this wouldn't happen as I feel even those against legalization would probably be upset watching the Federal government seize a large portion of state's funds.

Why does "People smoke weed and end up in jail because of it" lead to "The solution is to decriminalize it"?

And why just cannabis?

If the argument is, "Things that one does to one's own body should not be illegal," why stop at just marijuana? Why not cocaine, heroin, LSD, PCP, E, (insert list of things I don't even know exist here)?

What makes marijuana special as a drug as compared to others?

As noted, I mostly support legalization on the "The War on Drugs is a failure that leads to massive funding for criminal organizations" basis. Gangs and the drug cartels are mostly funded by the profits from drugs being illegal, and cutting their funding sources by legalizing is the only real reason I think legalizing it is worthwhile - being illegal does more harm than good. But this applies to all drugs, not just marijuana.

Please note that I mean this as non-condescendingly as possible.

What makes marijuana special is that it is incredibly mild. http://www.drugscience.org/dl/dl_comparison.html It is not physically addictive, and it's literally impossible to OD by smoking it. A lethal dose of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in cannabis) can only be achieved through extracting pure THC and injecting it intravenously...which nobody does, ever. Also it does not make people aggressive unlike alcohol. It's a depressant, albeit a mild one unless consumed in large amounts. Also there are virtually no negative health effects. The only two that I know of are stunted physical and brain growth in adolescents (hence the age limit of 21 in the proposed laws), and a slight increase in psychotic symptoms among people already experiencing psychosis, but still not as much as alcohol. There has never been a single study linking marijuana to any type of cancer, including lung cancer, surprisingly. In fact, they've found that it actually treats a number of cancers.

So basically when you ask:

Quote:

Why does "People smoke weed and end up in jail because of it" lead to "The solution is to decriminalize it"?

you have to realize there are two parts of this equation. Someone smoking weed and going to jail is because A)they smoked weed and B)it's against the law to smoke weed. I personally believe that B should be amended. To me it comes down to how one sees the law. I personally believe everything should be legal unless or until it can be demonstrated that it is a detriment to society at large (and also is not a basic right) for it to stay legal. On the other hand, some people believe everything should be illegal until or unless it's been proven that it's good for society. Since it has been proven ad nauseum at this point(kind of like evolution) that only the prohibition of cannabis is detrimental to society, that it is not harmful to the user, that it can be used responsibly, and furthermore that use can actually help the user in quantifiable ways (besides just liking how it makes one feel), I don't see why it should be illegal.

And I didn't even really get into the civil rights aspects, which cannot be ignored. Namely that (as I mentioned in my loung train wreck): Right now the United States has more people in prison than any other nation on earth, and more than ever in history. The majority of those people are in prison for non-violent, drug-related offenses. The majority of those are for marijuana offenses. This amounts to millions of Americans who are in prison, on parole, have felonies on their record (can never vote or own a gun, and makes it really hard to get a decent job), etc, all because of marijuana prohibition. Most of them are minorities. Also over one hundred thousand people (again, mostly minorities) are dead as a direct result of marijuana prohibition. Millions and millions of lives ruined, all because of marijuana prohibition.

Also I mention minorities not for the PC knee-jerk. I honestly don't give a shit about the color of the skin of the people, it's the fact that they're in prison at all that bothers me, regardless of their race. That said, it cannot be ignored that it disproportionately affects minority populations, even though the vast majority of users are white.

Oh yeah, and we've (United States) spent about a trillion dollars in the past 40 years, with usage rates only increasing in that time.

Why does "People smoke weed and end up in jail because of it" lead to "The solution is to decriminalize it"?

Because we live in a hypothetically free country and if my behavior isn't going to directly or highly likely to infringe on someone else's rights or safety then it should be legal. It's really as simple as that.

1) All decriminalized for personal use and research studies2) Do actual science on addictiveness and adverse effects of properly made and unadulterated product3) Use said science to regulate the drugs appropriately4) Even for the hardest drugs, treat addiction as a health issue, not a crime issue. Addicts should be able to get their drugs from a legal source.5) FOR GOD'S SAKE, LEGALIZE FUCKING SYRINGES ALREADY

I personally believe everything should be legal unless or until it can be demonstrated that it is a detriment to society at large (and also is not a basic right) for it to stay legal.

Sure - no arguments from me there. So why just focus on marijuana, instead of all currently illegal drugs?

Because it's the one the vast majority of people give a shit about. I don't know a single person holding back from doing crack solely for legal reasons and if it were legalized tomorrow they'd start smoking rock nightly. I do know plenty of people who don't smoke pot because they of the legal fallout, and if that changed so would their smoking habits.

Personally I'm for the legalization of more than just pot. I'm not entirely sure where the line should be drawn, but I'm open to the concept of a line where on the other side are drugs just too dangerous to be legal. I just want those drugs to be on that list for a reason more well thought out than sixty years ago it was considered a black people drug.